pm_701202 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-2- 1. High land cost 2. Shortage of money 3. High interest 4. Topography S. Present utility easement Mr. Herman presented two alternatives for the placement of Marion Street and indicated tha the Marion extension was being made at the request of the Villa~e. The first alternative would extend ~tarion west to intersect with Galtier. The second was merely a modificatic of the first with a median strip forcing traffic enterin~ Caltier to go north towards McCarrons Boulevard. Discussion Mr. Pope asked if any consideration was given to the construction of two buildings. Mr. Herman indicated that various alternatives were studied as to the configuration of the structure and the total development of the site. Roger Sax, representing Mr. Bob Schroeder, who lives directly north of the proposed pro- ject indicated that Mr. Schroeder was very concerned about the traffic coming almost into his bedroom. Mr. Sax suggested the best way to solve the potential traffic problem was nc to rezone the site from R.I. He indicated that the project would most definitely not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood but would overwhelm it. Mr. Frank Cincato felt that the property could be developed for single family dwellings. Mr. Bob Schroeder suggested that Marion Street be extended straight north and that the property on the west of Marion remain R-l while the property to the east of Marion could perhaps be rezoned for multiple family. Mr. George Johnson, McCarrons Boulevard, was concerned about the gradual encroachment of apartments into the residential area and asked the Commission to deny the request. Mr. Roger Holmes stated that the lake is a great natural resource for the enjoyment of mar people and that the apartment would completely dominate the lakeshore landscape. Mr. Bill Schroeder and Mr. Duane Halkibow felt that the project would dominate and overwhE the neighborhood. Mr. Howard Law expressed gratitude that the previously discussed committment had been madE and felt it was Dnnecessary for the residents to have to return for a re-negotiation ever) two or three years. Mr. Pope stated that he was not opposed to the rezoning but was opposed to the building facing the lake and being such a dominate factor in the neighborhood. He also expressed concern about the traffic problems created by the proposed Marion Street extension and suggested perhaps two buildings would lend more flexibility to the overall site design. Mr. Johnson opposed the basic concept of placing apartments on lakeshore property. Mr. Edlund felt the site should be rezoned but that perhaps the placement of Marion Street could be to the east of the apartment rather than the west. Mrs. Demos stated that she was opposed to apartment dwellings on the site, and that addin~ the 78 units would approximately double the number of living units on the lake. ~tr. Darling, Midwest Planning, felt the area would lend itself to multiple family dwellin~ and that he was generally in favor of the development.